DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 January 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are currently pending
Claim 1 is amended
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 15 January 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 16 October 2025
The 103 rejections over Fukahori in view of Lee have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment. However, a new grounds of rejection over Fukahori in view of Hosoda has been set forth, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “wherein the polyvinylidene fluoride (2) is either is either (2a)” repeats the phrase “is either”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukahori et al. (JP 2017182989 A), hereinafter Fukahori, in view of Hosoda et al. (WO 2019087652 A1 using US 20200243862 A1 as the English translation), hereinafter Hosoda.
Regarding claims 1-4, Fukahori teaches an electrode mixture (as is required by claim 1) comprising: a lithium-containing transition metal oxide (pg. 2, ¶ 6); a conductive additive (pg. 4, ¶ 4); a binder (pg. 5, ¶ 2); and an organic solvent, for example ethylene carbonate (pg. 8, ¶ 4), wherein
the conductive additive comprises at least one nanocarbon material selected from the group consisting of a multilayer carbon nanotube, a carbon nanohorn, a carbon nanofiber, a fullerene, and a graphene, in this case carbon nanotubes (pg. 4, ¶ 4) or graphene (pg. 5, ¶ 1) (as is also required by claim 2),
the binder comprises (1) a fluorine-containing copolymer comprising vinylidene fluoride unit and a fluorinated monomer unit, in this case the second binder may comprise a modified vinylidene fluoride-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer containing a tetrafluoroethylene component in a proportion of less than 50 mol% (as is also required by claim 4) (pg. 5, ¶ 4). This indicates that a content of vinylidene fluoride unit in the fluorine- containing copolymer is more than 50 mol% or 100 mol% or less with respect to all monomer units which overlaps with the claimed range of more than 50% and 99% or less in claim 1 and more than 57% and 97% or less in claim 3. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Fukahori further teaches the second binder comprising (2) a polyvinylidene fluoride being (2a) a vinylidene fluoride homopolymer consisting only of vinylidene fluoride unit, in this case unmodified polyvinylidene fluoride (pg. 5, ¶ 3).
Fukahori is silent as to a mass ratio of the polyvinylidene fluoride to the fluorine-containing copolymer in the binder being 80/20 to 40/60 in terms of a ratio of polyvinylidene fluoride/fluorine-containing copolymer. However, Hosoda teaches a binder comprising polyvinylidene fluoride (B) and a fluorine-containing polymer (A) [0023], wherein the polyvinylidene fluoride (B) may be a homopolymer [0097], the fluorine-containing polymer (A) contains a polymerized unit based on vinylidene fluoride [0039] and a polymerized unit based on tetrafluoroethylene [0040], and the fluorine-containing polymer (A) and the polyvinylidene fluoride (B) are contained at a mass ratio (A)/(B) of 5/95 to 95/5, more preferably 15/85 to 85/15 [0126]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Fukahori and Hosoda are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vinylidene fluoride electrode binders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of polymers in the second binder of Fukahori with the ratio taught by Hosoda. Doing so would have provided improved density of an electrode, improved adhesiveness to a current collector, improved flexibility of an electrode, and improved viscosity retention of slurry [0127].
Regarding claim 5, modified Fukahori teaches the electrode mixture according to claim 1. Fukahori further teaches a content of the binder being 0.3 to 3.0 mass% with respect to the total mass of the lithium-containing transition metal oxide, the conductive additive, and the binder. In this case Fukahori teaches the mass% to be 0.1-0.5 mass% with respect to the total solid content of the positive electrode (pg. 5, ¶ 2). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to select a mass% at the higher end of the range in order to ensure the binder can sufficiently bind the positive electrode active material to the positive electrode current collector and stabilize the viscosity (pg. 5, ¶ 2). Also, "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, modified Fukahori teaches the electrode mixture according to claim 1. Fukahori further teaches a content of the conductive additive being 0.3 to 3.0 mass% with respect to the total mass of the lithium-containing transition metal oxide, the conductive additive, and the binder. In this case Fukahori teaches a conductive additive comprising a fibrous carbon material, like carbon nanotubes or nanofibers (pg. 4, ¶ 4), as a mass percent of 0.01 to 0.5 mass% with respect to the total mass of the total solid content of the positive electrode mixture slurry (pg. 4, ¶ 5). Fukahori also teaches an additional conductive additive comprising graphene at a mass% of 0 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less(pg. 4, ¶ 6-pg. 5, ¶ 1). This combination would produce a conductive additive with a mass% of 0.01 mass% or more and 2.0 mass% or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, modified Fukahori teaches the electrode mixture according to claim 1. Fukahori further teaches the electrode mixture being provided on one or each of both sides of a current collector (pg. 6, ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 9, modified Fukahori teaches the electrode according to claim 8. Fukahori further teaches a secondary battery comprising the electrode according to claim 8 (pg. 6, ¶ 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Fukahori teaches a particular mass % for the second binder in the electrode mixture that teaches away from the binder mass ratio of claim 1. Examiner respectfully points out that the binder mass ratio determines the composition of the second binder itself and the mass % determines how much of the second binder is present in the mixture. It is possible to modify one without impacting the other.
Applicant argues that P(VdF/TFE) and PVdF are disclosed as second binders that are expected to be used in combination with the first binder that does not fall under either of the claimed (1) fluorine-containing copolymer or (2) polyvinylidene fluoride of the present invention. Applicant further argues that Fukahori’s binder is quite different from the present invention where the electrode mixture does not contain a binder other than the claimed binder having the (1) fluorine-containing copolymer and the (2) polyvinylidene fluoride. Examiner agrees that the first binder of Fukahori does not fall under either of the claimed (1) fluorine-containing copolymer or (2) polyvinylidene fluoride of the present invention. However, Fukahori teaches the second binder preferably comprising any 1 type or more presented in the list of second binders (pg. 5, ¶ 3). This implies the possibility of using two or more kinds of polymers as the second binder, with P(VdF/TFE) as the (1) fluorine-containing copolymer and PVdF as the (2) polyvinylidene fluoride. Further, the present claim 1 does not exclude the presence of multiple binders. Therefore, the second binder of Fukahori consisting of a (1) fluorine-containing copolymer and a (2) polyvinylidene fluoride reads on the claimed binder, even with the presence of the first binder.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the combination of Fukahori and Lee have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722